I'm wondering about our current status as a whole on how things are moving between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I was a Rasta that converted to Orthodoxy through - 1st -an American priest from the French Orthodox Church (set up by St. John Maximovitch) 2nd- Chrismated and Baptised by an OCA priest. 3rd - currently in the western American Diocese of Serbian Orthodox. Long strange Trip for me...what disheartens me is that I can not recieve Eucharist from an Oriental Orthodox Church. While I have many priest friends now who would gladly (if they could) serve the Ethiopian laity, they can't and I have been instructed by my OCA priest friend (who baptised me) not to recieve communion from them. What will it take to unite these two churches?

(p.s. I am aware of Chalcedon and have done my homework regarding the view of some OO having a different point of view.)

I know there have been meetings between our leaders and there is a joint commission that has studied the issues. Agreements have been made between our two Churches, but I do not have the details in front of me. Others who post here know more than I do about this. I think limited intercommunion exists on an official level in Syria and Egypt. Again, others know more than I about this.

Unfortunately, I don't see complete union between our two Churches very soon. However, it is something for which I and others pray. Let's hope and pray that God makes this a reality within our lifetimes!

I am also surprised that SCOBA with such a huge American Laity between them, would drag their heels at all regarding this. Unless the ties to the ROC are stronger than those with Jerusalem and Antioch and Constantinople.

I've been told by someone of prominence in the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church, who supports full unity with the so called Oriental Orthodox Church's, that the dialogue facilitated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in conjunction with all the Holy Orthodox Churches, begun in the 1960's, concluded its work. This work has been published long ago. I had received a gratuitous copy from the Holy Cross (School of Theology) Press, Brookline, MA, some years ago. I think it is now out of print.

This source told me, with the conclusion of the dialogue, all that remains is for the Church (EO) to acknowledge that unification has been achieved. He indicated Patriarch Bartholomew supports this unification, but that too many, throughout the Holy Orthodox Churches, remain opposed to it. Not-with-standing the reasons for it, many deemed legitimate by those on the EO side, I think the problem that remains is that the Oriental Orthodox Church's have not accepted, en to-to, the doctrines defined by all of the Ecumenical Synods (Councils).

SCOBA cannot act on this matter because it has been handled by representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches; a pan-Orthodox Commission.

Who is your "Someone of Prominence"? Snoopy from the Peanuts Gang, maybe St. Linus the BlanketBearer? Just kidding...but really, sources of the mysterious type are quite shady. I wish ou could divulge atleast their status.

I guess you don't know me so you don't know that you can trust me, but you can check my prior posts on this forum. As an Orthodox Christian, who's been granted an "official title" (Ecclesiarch) by my diocesan bishop, I "let my yes be yes and my no, no." I typically will say, "I've heard;" it's my recollection, but I can't be sure;" I'm not a priest, but I think," etc. I do not know if this person would want to be quoted and I had the conversation, probably 5 years ago. He would know; and I don't think the info. I posted is considered confidential.

Thanks for all the insight. - I guess we've got a lot of talking left to do. I didn't realize we condemned eachother's saints. I was aware of Nestorious' works being cast out (lack of the proper terminology) but I know the OO did the same thing later anyway.

This source told me, with the conclusion of the dialogue, all that remains is for the Church (EO) to acknowledge that unification has been achieved. He indicated Patriarch Bartholomew supports this unification, but that too many, throughout the Holy Orthodox Churches, remain opposed to it.

His All Holiness has said quite clearly that the OO must accept all 7 Ecumenical Councils before any reunion (something that won't happen any time soon, if ever). There's an audio recording of it somewhere.

I was aware of Nestorious' works being cast out (lack of the proper terminology) but I know the OO did the same thing later anyway.

The Church Fathers at the Third Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorius, and that is common to both the EO and OO tradition. The OO's, in addition, have rejected other language used by Nestorius ("two natures,") which the EO's have held onto, while giving it a different interpretation than he did. That actually is partly what caused the rift between our two Churches.

Couldn't the OO accept the Canons made by the councils without accepting the Anathemas placed on certain saints? Would that be acceptable and still maintain the infallibility of the Council Decisions?

I think it was mentioned in one of the threads to which I linked above that the EO Church pretty strongly identifies itself as the Church of the Seven Councils. If I am wrong about this, someone correct me. Since the EO's view the seven councils as foundational to their Church, they have a hard time with the idea of accepting the OO's without the OO's first fully accepting all seven councils as ecumenical. I don't think that their leadership will be OK with the OO's just accepting some of the canons, much less just a demonstration that we essentially have the same faith. The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

I've never heard us referred to as "the church of the seven councils" but that is the insinuation 'round the teachings...my chatecumen books are OCA and they make mention of our church upholding all 7.

I think it was mentioned in one of the threads to which I linked above that the EO Church pretty strongly identifies itself as the Church of the Seven Councils. If I am wrong about this, someone correct me. Since the EO's view the seven councils as foundational to their Church, they have a hard time with the idea of accepting the OO's without the OO's first fully accepting all seven councils as ecumenical. I don't think that their leadership will be OK with the OO's just accepting some of the canons, much less just a demonstration that we essentially have the same faith. The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

There are some who strongly identify us EO as "the Church of the Seven Councils," but this is usually in the context of EO-OO or EO-RC polemics. In reality, there would be more to accept than "just" the 7 Ecumenical Councils; I don't see reunion without acceptance of also at least the 8th (Photian) and 9th (Palamite) Ecumenical Councils.

There are some who strongly identify us EO as "the Church of the Seven Councils," but this is usually in the context of EO-OO or EO-RC polemics. In reality, there would be more to accept than "just" the 7 Ecumenical Councils; I don't see reunion without acceptance of also at least the 8th (Photian) and 9th (Palamite) Ecumenical Councils.

That is the problem. Because so many of these conversations take place in a polemical context, the impression we get of you is that you view your seven (or eight, or nine) councils much the way the Protestants view the Bible. The impression that I have received during my time here is that what we actually believe is not so important to the EO's, as whether we adopt seven, (or eight, or nine) councils. I have to remind myself that what I encounter on line is not necessarily representative of real life.

I'm going to copy here something written by Father Peter on another thread which I felt pretty well described the difference between the OO's and EO's with regard to how we view our councils. It's a bit harsh, but I kept in in the public forum because I felt he did such a good job of describing the difference in our psychologies, and that is something that people need to understand when dealing with us. That being said, I wonder how much of what he describes about his personal experience with EO's is really just representative of who is debating this stuff on the internet, vs. the church leaders who are out there in real life. Maybe you can comment on that here in this thread, if you want:

I think the whole issue of ecumenicity is different in the OO, and indeed that the EO view is one which developed later during the controversial period as a response to criticisms.

It does not seem to me that the OO tend to say simply 'accept only three councils', in the way that many EO just state 'accept the seven or eight or nine councils'. This is because it seems to me that the OO Fathers have been more concerned to deal with the substance of faith rather than using the councils as either a polemical tool, without reference to their substance. Chalcedon is rejected because it is not considered Orthodox, the issue of ecumenicity is not the main one. Indeed all Imperial councils were called as being ecumenical, this did not mean what it has later come to mean within EOxy.

...

I do consider Ephesus II important within the OO tradition, but ecumenicity is not understood in the same way. Indeed I believe that it is in modern times that the EO has come to consider the councils an infallible authority over and above the Church, in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church have defined the Pope as the infallible authority over and above the Church, and Protestants have defined the Bible as the infallible authority over and above the Church. I believe that OOxy preserves the teaching that it is the Holy Spirit alone who is over and above the Church and who is the only infallible foundation of the life of the Church.

This allows OOxy to recognise both the human and divine aspect in all conciliar activity, while EOxy seems to me to be truly monophysite or docetic in its view of some councils by eliminating the human aspect and making the council little different to the means by which the Koran was apparently produced. I do not say this polemically, but because it does seem to me that this is the case.

...

Within OOxy I believe that councils are accepted as authoritative in so far as they expound the truth, in so far as they are Orthodox, and that which is not Orthodox is passed over and that which is Orthodox is simply a re-iteration of that which has always been true. It is quite possible for me to find some things to criticise in the Acts of the Second Council while also considering it essentially Orthodox and authoritative. It is even possible for me to find those things with which I agree in Chalcedon and pass over the rest, or understand it within a context. This is because the Holy Spirit does not overwhelm human activity but works through human agency.

Yet it seems to me, from over 15 years discussion with many EO, that it is much harder for the EO to be reflective in regard to the councils since they must either be entirely true (though no-one can tell me authoritatively what that includes) or are false. This seems to me to be a wrong attitude towards the councils, indeed any conciliar activity and stands in the way of unity and agreement. It is even necessary to show that if Chalcedon must be accepted entirely as a divine work in all of its statements, and if to reject any part of it is to fail to be Orthodox (and many EO have said this to me) then Pope Leo is not Orthodox because he always rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

This does not seem to me to be absolutely problematic in an OO context, since the OO Fathers, it seems to me, would want to ask what a person did believe about the issue in view, not what they thought about something that a council had said. It was not so important to St Cyril, that John of Antioch accept that Ephesus I was 'ecumenical', it was more important that he thought in an acceptably Orthodox manner about the issue that Ephesus I tried to deal with. This seems to me to be different to the modern EO view which I have often met with, which says 'accept the seven councils' even while the person insisting on this does not actually have a clue what the seven councils stand for.

...

it seems to me that the OO would see that the Holy Spirit can work in such situations, but it does not seem to me that such events should be set up as infallible and above the Church. What does infallible mean? Surely we should be asking only how far the councils represented that which is true, that is all that matters. If the label of infallible is added in modern times simply to mean that no questions can be asked, then it seems that there is something wrong and that there is a difference in view between the EO and OO...

Don't let that excite you too much. I have also been told that the Antiochians are also in open communion with the Melkites (Arab Greek Catholics) of Antioch due to the difficulties of receiving the Eucharist in the region. But it does show you that real hardship and persecution tend to put a stop to all the extraneous B.S.

The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

No, they will have to accept the Three Ecumenical Councils.

You mean they would have to reject the latter four? You don't think our Church leaders would be willing to see them keep the four other councils, with the understanding that we and they disagree as to their status, but still have a common faith?

The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

No, they will have to accept the Three Ecumenical Councils.

You mean they would have to reject the latter four? You don't think our Church leaders would be willing to see them keep the four other councils, with the understanding that we and they disagree as to their status, but still have a common faith?

Hmmm. I'm wondering if OO leadership would want us to reject Ecumenical councils 5-9, since those are not disputed; now, the debate (ongoing) about Chalcedon, the various Anathemas and definitions included, would likely be lengthy and of critical importance to the discussion, in addition to addressing the situation post-Chalcedon (i.e. persecution of the OOs in the name of the Empire).

Let me re-phrase that ( if I've got it wrong tell me)...In a nutshell, there is no dispute between the first three, there is some dispute over the fourth, and at the fifth the Copts and EO's had some disagreement on who's way of expressing the divinity of Christ ( in their own tongue ) was better ( each saying the same thing ). Anathemas were wildly flung at eachother in offense over misunderstanding and everyone stopped talking. Then the sixth and seventh were pretty much a Byzantine issue that didn't concern the Copts and Ethiopians.

Funny thought: Would we not also be the largest Church in the world? This would give us great popularity and respect and then World Leaders would listen to our Patriarchs instead of thinking of them as the Crazy Bearded Man in the funny black robe that they have to put up with. Then all the faithful would have to leave and go to the wildernesses and desert (which would be packed with more devout people than expected from other regions ) and there would be not a cave in sight that did not have a hermit. Then bats would micro-evolve into a species that sleeps during the day in trees due to being forced from their homes! This would cause such a stir among atheistic animal rights activists. Pardon my humor - I know I have no sense of it.

Let me re-phrase that ( if I've got it wrong tell me)...In a nutshell, there is no dispute between the first three, there is some dispute over the fourth, and at the fifth the Copts and EO's had some disagreement on who's way of expressing the divinity of Christ ( in their own tongue ) was better ( each saying the same thing ). Anathemas were wildly flung at eachother in offense over misunderstanding and everyone stopped talking. Then the sixth and seventh were pretty much a Byzantine issue that didn't concern the Copts and Ethiopians.

You may want to click on the Chalcedon tag below and do a little reading.

This is a gross oversimplification, but here I go:

We agree on the first three councils. It was with the EO's (and Catholics') fourth council (Chalcedon) that the schism started. The issues are very complicated, but the bottom line is that Chalcedon embraced some language that the OO's felt was too close to the language of the Nestorians.

One century later, at your fifth council (Constantinople II) the EO's adopted additional language that excluded a Nestorian interpretation of the language used at Chalcedon. They also condemned some Nestorian writings and a Nestorian theologian named Theodore of Mopsuestia. This secured an Orthodox interpretation of Chalcedon and brought the EO's back closer to the position of the OO's.

Councils 6 and 7 had to do with issues which were internal to the EO's.

I have no idea what councils 8 and 9 were about, but I suspect they had something to do with the Catholics.

It would make my life easier if someone could tell me how many ecumenical councils the EO's really have. Is it 7, 8, or 9? I hear different numbers from different people. Is there a consensus on this among the EO's, or is it something which is disputed?

This depends on the jurisdiction in the EO's...Byzantine Catholics, Eastern Catholics from Bosnia, Old Believers & from which Country (not totally sure)...etc. OCA admits to seven in the Orthodox Faith handbook viii Bible and Church History

The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

No, they will have to accept the Three Ecumenical Councils.

You mean they would have to reject the latter four? You don't think our Church leaders would be willing to see them keep the four other councils, with the understanding that we and they disagree as to their status, but still have a common faith?

Hmmm. I'm wondering if OO leadership would want us to reject Ecumenical councils 5-9, since those are not disputed; now, the debate (ongoing) about Chalcedon, the various Anathemas and definitions included, would likely be lengthy and of critical importance to the discussion, in addition to addressing the situation post-Chalcedon (i.e. persecution of the OOs in the name of the Empire).

Actually, the Sixth One is the one that would cause problems: it calls Disocoros "hated of God" in passing. IIRC, Diosocros is not even mentioned in the Definition of Chalcedon, let alone anathematized. He was deposed, though, technically because of refusing three fold summons, but really for the misdeeds of Ephesus II, especially as regards Flavian.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Let me re-phrase that ( if I've got it wrong tell me)...In a nutshell, there is no dispute between the first three, there is some dispute over the fourth, and at the fifth the Copts and EO's had some disagreement on who's way of expressing the divinity of Christ ( in their own tongue ) was better ( each saying the same thing ). Anathemas were wildly flung at eachother in offense over misunderstanding and everyone stopped talking. Then the sixth and seventh were pretty much a Byzantine issue that didn't concern the Copts and Ethiopians.

You may want to click on the Chalcedon tag below and do a little reading.

This is a gross oversimplification, but here I go:

We agree on the first three councils. It was with the EO's (and Catholics') fourth council (Chalcedon) that the schism started. The issues are very complicated, but the bottom line is that Chalcedon embraced some language that the OO's felt was too close to the language of the Nestorians.

One century later, at your fifth council (Constantinople II) the EO's adopted additional language that excluded a Nestorian interpretation of the language used at Chalcedon. They also condemned some Nestorian writings and a Nestorian theologian named Theodore of Mopsuestia. This secured an Orthodox interpretation of Chalcedon and brought the EO's back closer to the position of the OO's.

Councils 6 and 7 had to do with issues which were internal to the EO's.

I have no idea what councils 8 and 9 were about, but I suspect they had something to do with the Catholics.

8 was about the deposition of St. Photios, but had issues on the filioque. 9 was about the essence and energies of God, and hesychasm practice.

Quote

It would make my life easier if someone could tell me how many ecumenical councils the EO's really have. Is it 7, 8, or 9? I hear different numbers from different people. Is there a consensus on this among the EO's, or is it something which is disputed?

7 are not disputed. 8 and 9 some consider Ecumenical or some consider like you consider Ephesus II.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Just a friendly reminder that if this becomes a contentious debate about Chalcedon, I will be putting it in the private section. Our new member's questions here have to do with the current state of negotiations between our Churches and what it would take for reunion to happen. Let's keep on that topic. Contentiously speculating about why OO saints may really have been condemned by the EO's, or otherwise speculating on the minute details of councils that are not really even the subject of this thread will result in posts being split off and thrown into private. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

In my own experience I would say that there are two or three attitudes found within EOxy which are relevant to the present status of relations.

There are those educated and less educated who consider that the OO are EO enough and look forward to reunion and practice a degree of inter-communion and liturgical fellowship as appropriate. Others in this category consider that the OO are EO enough and wait with frustration for the various hierarchies to do something more practical about the situation. Yet other Holy Synods have already made positive steps - both Antioch and Romania have synodically accepted the results of the dialogue. I have been in contact with many EO who have such views, and have spoken with EO bishops who also hold to them.

There are those who have no interest in the situation, and make no effort to educate themselves, and these are found among laity, clergy and bishops. Indeed a EO bishop told me that the main problem was laziness, fear and overwork among EO bishops. This large group of people often have a false and stereotypical apprehension of the OO which allows them to persist in their views with a certain intellectual and spiritual inertia.

Finally there are a smaller and vocal group of critics who believe firmly that the OO are heretics, and who are unable to consider anything but a static binary situation where EO is good and everything else is bad in some sense. In my experience, and in conversation with EOs from my group 1, these people seem almost cultlike, driven by fear, and are most often converts, either from a Protestant background or from a less rigourous practice of their own Orthodoxy. Most of the materials produced by this group are scandalously libellous, based on poor research, and repeat the same attacks over and over again.

Thank you Father. I know you have been involved in a great deal of dialogue, and your input here is much appreciated.

As I indicated above, my own much more limited experience tells me that the third group you describe is a minority, but they are over-represented on the internet. This can easily give one a skewed and unrealistic view of the EO's. I think in real life the first group you describe is much larger. I hope that is the case, as I really do desire unity between our two Churches.

I have read several pamphlets by such groups which are riddled with untruths, misunderstandings and polemics which could have been easily cleared up by proper study of OO primary sources and through conversation with educated OO. Many quote a few fragments which are available in the PG while ignoring completely the massive corpus of works in Syriac, and in Western languages.

It is very encouraging that in the last decade a great many excellent Western scholars have turned their attention to the OO tradition and write substantial, balanced accounts. Perhaps the fruit of their labours will feed into the conversation betwen the EO and OO at some point.

Nevertheless it is my personal opinion that while group 1 will continue to be encouraging, and group 2 will be liable to education about our tradition, and some will move into group 1, in fact group 3 will continue to be vocal and will seek to destablise the dialogue, as has been seen to occur in Georgia for instance, where the hierarchy was essentially blackmailed by a group of monastics. At some point the EO will need to decide whether it senses a spiritual imperative to work for unity with those who have substantially the same faith - as I believe is the motivation for the OO efforts (we certainly do not NEED to be accepted by the EO since we know that we are Orthodox Church) - and must deal with those elements within its communion which are working towards an insular, narrow and fearful response to those outside their formal communion.

Please edit whatever is considered inappropriate. I think it is known that I have been constantly committed to the dialogue with the EO and so I am not speaking out of a polemical viewpoint but merely describing my own experiences. The worst abuse I have ever received on the internet has come from EO, mostly converts, and the only time I have felt hostlity in a church was in an EO monastery. It is this attitude which frustrates union, not any genuine theoloigical issues.

I have read several pamphlets by such groups which are riddled with untruths, misunderstandings and polemics which could have been easily cleared up by proper study of OO primary sources and through conversation with educated OO. Many quote a few fragments which are available in the PG while ignoring completely the massive corpus of works in Syriac, and in Western languages.

It is very encouraging that in the last decade a great many excellent Western scholars have turned their attention to the OO tradition and write substantial, balanced accounts. Perhaps the fruit of their labours will feed into the conversation betwen the EO and OO at some point.

Nevertheless it is my personal opinion that while group 1 will continue to be encouraging, and group 2 will be liable to education about our tradition, and some will move into group 1, in fact group 3 will continue to be vocal and will seek to destablise the dialogue, as has been seen to occur in Georgia for instance, where the hierarchy was essentially blackmailed by a group of monastics. At some point the EO will need to decide whether it senses a spiritual imperative to work for unity with those who have substantially the same faith - as I believe is the motivation for the OO efforts (we certainly do not NEED to be accepted by the EO since we know that we are Orthodox Church) - and must deal with those elements within its communion which are working towards an insular, narrow and fearful response to those outside their formal communion.

Please edit whatever is considered inappropriate. I think it is known that I have been constantly committed to the dialogue with the EO and so I am not speaking out of a polemical viewpoint but merely describing my own experiences. The worst abuse I have ever received on the internet has come from EO, mostly converts, and the only time I have felt hostlity in a church was in an EO monastery. It is this attitude which frustrates union, not any genuine theoloigical issues.

Father Peter

Fr. Peter (after kissing your hand,) what do you make of it from the OO side? There seems to be a lot of dispute now over topics like theosis, with sides forming with some following EO spirituality and some rejecting it. I don't know much about what's going on though.

Couldn't the OO accept the Canons made by the councils without accepting the Anathemas placed on certain saints? Would that be acceptable and still maintain the infallibility of the Council Decisions?

Rome didn't accept alot of canons at first either.......according to Dr. Leo Donald Davis, it took her 900 years to embrace some of them.

Quote

"Quote:“the work of the Council of Constantinople was completed. Theologically, it had carried on the logic of the Council of Nicaea and cautiously applied that Council’s reasoning about the Son’s relation to the Father to the Holy Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology. Administratively, the Council continued the eastern practice of accommodating the ecclesiastical organization of the Empire, sowing the seeds of discord among the four great sees of East and West by raising the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as New Rome. All in all, it proved to be a remarkable Council. It was never intended to be an ecumenical Council: the Bishop of Rome was not invited; only 150 Eastern bishops were present; only one by accident from the West. Only at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 did it begin to rank in the East with the Council of Nicaea as more than a local council. Because of the schism at Antioch, its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitmate bishop of Constantinople. Strong doubts were later expressed about the authenticity of its creed. Its canons were rejected in the West for nine hundred years." [1] page 129

and

Quote

Quote:“Most controversial of all, canon twenty-eight read that the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople “properly gave the primacy to the Throne of elder Rome, because that was the imperial city.” And being moved by the same intention they now “gave equal privileges to the most holy Throne of New Rome, judging with reason, that the city which was honored with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in ecclesiastical matters, being second after her.” The canon also granted to the patriarch of Constantinople the right to ordain the duly elected metropolitans of the civil diocese of Thrace, Asia and Pontus as well as the bishops in lands outside the Empire, though metropolitans continued to ordain the bishops subject to them. Thus, Constantinople was assigned a patriarchate comprising today’s Turkey, eastern Bulgaria and romania, giving it territory equal to Antioch and Alexandria. Besides it was declared, as the see of the capital of the Eastern Empire, to have equal privileges in ecclesiastical matters with the see of Rome but occupying second place to Rome in honor. Further, the patriarch of Constantinople could hear appeals over the heads of all the bishops, metropolitans and exarchs of the East. The intent of the Council Fathers in all of this was not to attack the bishop of Rome but to provide an ecclesiastical structure for the East to keep the Church in peace. In another declaration, the see of Jerusalem was proclaimed a fifth patriarchate along with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. The twenty-eighth canon was voted on October 21 with neither the papal legates nor the imperial commissioners present. Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem and 182 bishops approved it. The next day the legate Paschasinus demanded the reading of the acts of the session. The bishops pointed out that he had refused to attend, but the notary read out the account of the proceedings. The papal legate Lucentius suggested that the vigorously denied. The legates then expressed amazement that the bishops had not followed the sixth canon of Nicaea which had said nothing of the authority of Constantinople. They insisted that their instructions were to resist any usurpation of the rights of the bishop of Rome. They refused to accept the third canon of the Council of Constantinople which decreed of Rome because Constantinople was new Rome. In vain the bishops of Pontus and Asiaa pointed out that the twenty-eighth canon merely sanctioned practice, for the patriarch of Constantinople had long ordained metropolitans in their civil dioceses. Eusebius of Dorylaeum said that he had personally read the third canon of Constantinople to Pope Leo and claimed that he had accepted it. The imperial commissioners approved the canon; the bishops acclaimed their decision over the protests of the papal legates. On this sour note, the Council ended. In February, 452, Emperor Marcian promulgated the decrees: “All therefore shall be bound to hold the decisions of the sacred council of Chalcedon and indulge no further doubts. Take heed therefore to this edict of our Serenity: abstain from profane words and cease all further discussion of religion.” [2] pages 190-191

JNORM888

[1].[2] from the book (The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology) by Leo Donald Davis.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 09:45:44 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Couldn't the OO accept the Canons made by the councils without accepting the Anathemas placed on certain saints? Would that be acceptable and still maintain the infallibility of the Council Decisions?

I think it was mentioned in one of the threads to which I linked above that the EO Church pretty strongly identifies itself as the Church of the Seven Councils. If I am wrong about this, someone correct me. Since the EO's view the seven councils as foundational to their Church, they have a hard time with the idea of accepting the OO's without the OO's first fully accepting all seven councils as ecumenical. I don't think that their leadership will be OK with the OO's just accepting some of the canons, much less just a demonstration that we essentially have the same faith. The OO's, on the other hand, would be more likely to accept reunion based upon a demonstration that we have the same faith. At least that is how I understand the situation.

It took Rome a long long time to embrace all the canons.

Jnorm888

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

I know communion between the two Churches will take time, but is it likely to happen? I know from the EO side people pray for communion with the CC but (not to be pessimistic) I don't see this ever happening. How likely is communion between the EO and OO? I realize that it has to take time to prepare but will it at some time happen?

Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.